|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
US AZ: OPED: Western Voters Take Steps To Decriminalize Marijuana
ccguide Sunday 18 Aug 2002 Pubdate: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 Source: Arizona Daily Sun (AZ) Contact: Copyright: 2002 Arizona Daily Sun Website: http://www.azdailysun.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1906 Author: J. D. Tuccille Note: The author is a Flagstaff-based Senior Editor of The Henry Hazlitt Foundation's Free-Market Net http://www.free-market.net/ Referenced: Henderson's essay 'Supporting the Drug War Supports Terrorists' http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/we/2002/henderson_0502.html Cited: Common Sense for Drug Policy http://www.csdp.org/ Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org/ WESTERN VOTERS TAKE STEPS TO DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA Unexpected chinks are appearing in the once seemingly insurmountable legal wall the government has erected against marijuana. Not only are western voters continuing their efforts to ease access to the drug by people with chronic ailments, there are signs that a more laissez-faire attitude may also be extended to recreational users. Even in the halls of power in Washington, D.C., important questions are being asked about the morality and practicality of the federal government's drug prohibition policies. In a move that emphasized California's resistance to federal marijuana policy, that state's Supreme Court recently ruled that people who use or grow marijuana with a doctor's approval are protected by a voter-approved law from state prosecution. "The possession and cultivation of marijuana is no more criminal than the possession and acquisition of any prescription drug," the unanimous opinion said. That California is a hotbed of opposition to federal drug laws is little surprise; the state often functions as a world unto itself. But similar sentiments are being voiced very vocally in other jurisdictions. Arizona voters, who have already approved marijuana for medical use, will vote on a measure that would establish a state-administered system for providing marijuana to the ill and decriminalize the possession of two ounces or less of the drug. Drug warriors have responded to the ballot initiative with a measure of their own that would actually toughen penalties for nonviolent drug offenders, setting the stage for a full-scale battle. Nevada voters, who have also legalized the medical use of marijuana, may eliminate penalties for possession of less than three ounces of marijuana and allow the sale of the drug in licensed shops. The initiative, which would have to be approved a second time if it passes, appears to have Nevadans about evenly divided. It briefly enjoyed the support of the state's largest police organization before board members switched positions and ousted their president over the issue. And Seattle voters may direct police to make arrests for marijuana possession their lowest priority. Opposing the measure, officials argue that it's unnecessary, since they already consider marijuana arrests a waste of resources. Obviously, there's been a sea change in public attitudes toward marijuana in recent years. But what's behind this grassroots revolt? For starters, Americans no longer seem to find the drug warriors very convincing. Prohibitionists have tightened laws and massed their forces for years with little discernible effect on the availability or popularity of illegal intoxicants. Marijuana has been used by millions of Americans with little ill effect -- many responsible people happily smoke an occasional joint the way their neighbors sip wine and beer. Opponents of restrictive laws have been vocal with their message that prohibitionist efforts are far more threatening to health and freedom than are drugs themselves. Common Sense for Drug Policy singles out for criticism mandatory minimum sentences that condemn many nonviolent drug offenders to years behind bars. CSDP also points to countries like Canada and the UK, which are moving to ease their own restrictions on marijuana use. Opponents of drug prohibition have also effectively rebutted the drug warriors' heavy-handed propaganda efforts. When the federal government ran TV spots accusing drug users of complicity in terrorism, the Libertarian Party and the Drug Policy Alliance quickly responded with print ads accusing drug warriors of funneling funds to terrorist organizations. As over-the-top as such charges may seem, they have the benefit of being founded in reality. Writing for the conservative Hoover Institution, economist David R. Henderson recently traced the incentives that people with criminal intent have to deal in illegal goods and services. He said, bluntly, "A more informative ad line from the U.S. government would be: 'When you support the drug war, you're supporting terrorists.'" And when the illegal nature of drugs doesn't funnel funds to terrorists through purchases, it does so through outright subsidies. The U.S. government has repeatedly cut checks to unsavory national governments -- many with terrorist ties -- in return for assistance on drug prohibition. The terrorists who have enjoyed the support of prohibitionists in recent years strike Americans where they live in the most visceral way possible. The Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter offers this uncomfortable tidbit: "Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies." Just months later, Taliban troops and their al-Qaida allies faced off against U.S. forces sent to avenge September 11. Even at the federal level, where die-hard prohibitionists have dug in for the long haul, some softening of policy is apparent. John Walters, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, reassured Nevada voters that if they passed their legalization initiative, "I don't believe you'd see federal officials coming into [Nevada] to enforce possession laws." FBI director Robert Mueller sounded a similar note, saying that the bureau is shifting resources from anti-drug tasks to efforts against terrorism. "Where there were 10 [FBI agents] on a drug task force in the past, now there will be five." And in an admittedly symbolic effort, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank introduced the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which would revive federalism by blocking the federal government from opposing state efforts to allow the use of marijuana as medicine. Frank was supported by conservative Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP member of Congress with strongly libertarian inclinations. Americans are moving slowly and carefully to dismantle the failed policy of drug prohibition. But when it comes to marijuana, people appear eager to protect themselves and their neighbors from laws that do more harm than any drug ever could. - --- MAP posted-by: doc
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!